On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:39:39AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> > > On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> > >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > The more controversial question is what to do if someone tries to
>> > >> > create such a cast anyway. ?We could just ignore that as we do now, or
>> > >> > we could throw a NOTICE, WARNING, or ERROR.
>> > >>
>> > >> IMHO, not being an error per se but an implementation limitation i
>> > >> would prefer to send a WARNING
>> > >
>> > > Implementation limitations are normally reported as errors. ?I don't see
>> > > why it should be different here.
>> > >
>> >
>> > ok, patch reports an error... do we want to backpatch this? if we want
>> > to do so maybe we can backpatch as a warning
>>
>> Minor clarification attached.
>
> What happened to this patch for casts on domains from June?
Well, if we apply this, it has the possibility to break existing
dumps. I think at a minimum if we're going to do this we need to also
modify pg_dump not to dump any such useless casts that may exist in
pre-9.2 databases, so that our usual advice to use the newer pg_dump
will still work.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
